Free Traffic Legal Advice

they are trying to say you have some kind of repairing lease?? very unusual in private letting I would have thought.

No, as much as I understand, they are saying that the damage to the flat below mine, happened due to negligence on my part of not adequately maintaining my Shower Base Seals.

So as per their reading of the lease I am 100% liable to "make good" the damage. For this they are insisting to use their "vetted" and "reputable" workers and asking me to pay the bills.

My questions to the forum are two:
1) Am I even liable for this legally?
2) Irrespective of the above answer, can they really force me to use their expensive vendor for no good reasons?

I am happy to share my 102 page lease (I have ran OCR on the PDF so it is a searchable PDF), please advise how. I am not even sure if is it a "confidential" document, please advise if I shouldn't share.
Also, they have only quoted the clause which I already shared while claiming the cost, does that mean that rest of the lease isn't applicable? any specific parts I can or should share here?

Difficult for anyone to answer without seeing your lease…

I have uploaded the "clause" they quoted for their claim. Sharing Imgur link again
https://imgur.com/a/lease-clause-2kyChQr

Appreciate any help

Hello all,
I am a leaseholder and am currently occupying the flat myself with my family.
The flat below ours got some minor damage due to leakage originating from my flat.

The Landlord/management company are unfriendly and their workers failed to spot the issue months ago which caused the problem to escalate and eventually caused damage in my own flat as well. Since then I have paid to get both the source of the leak and the my own flat's avoidable damage fixed.

However, landlord is insisting that I pay for the damages to the flat below as well. Worst, since the leaseholder below has let out the flat I am only able communicate with the agent and not the owner himself.

The workers recommended by the agents are quoting roughly 3x the price I have been quoted from trusted providers I have used and even shared links to their MyBuilder and CheckATrade profiles.

Last they have said this:
our Landlord is more inclined for the works to be completed using a contractor via our management services as they will have gone through a vetting process and are reputable.

What are my options here? Can I force them to share the leaseholders contact details? Am I even obligated to pay anything for damage which also was caused due to poor diagnostic work from the managing agents workers?

I have uploaded the clause of the lease (on Imgur) which they are quoting to claim the costs.
https://imgur.com/a/2kyChQr

There is a buildings insurance but excess is a huge £500 and the bills are lower than that, so it's useless to try that.

I suggest you talk to your cousin. If this car park accommodates drivers other than simply Morrisons, whose opening hours are exactly the same as those on the board, then ask them how. If it doesn't, then it's not intended for visitors, it's for customers.

In retrospect it may just be for customers, my cousin only moved there in 2024 so he maynot even know himself. He assumed it was free.

Also, if you have the time I suggest that you read this(skip the debate about penalties and the second case and just read Beavis) and then think whether CRA provides a defence. Their Lordships didn't think so. Para. 107 has clear parallels with your situation and the test of 'fairness' was met because there must clearly be requirement for PE (coincidentally the same company as in your case) to ensure that drivers do not overstay the 2-hour limit because it seems it's a shoppers' car park.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html&query=(Beavis)

Thanks for sharing, so the courts did rule in favor of ParkingEye, though in this case there is no mention of "Tariffs apply outside these hours" which clearly caused me all the confusion. I can only wonder if that would make any difference.

And something you've not mentioned is your lease company. It's pretty standard practice for these to charge hirers a fee for their handling costs i.e. challenging PCNs, are you sure they didn't here or wouldn't if they had to deal with others?

They have told, they are happy to forward notices such as this for free as much as I understand. This is what they stated at the start of the lease (any admin fee etc would only be charged if they have to do more work than forwarding letters and sharing information.)

If you do get any fines or tickets, these will come through to us first as we are the registered owners of the car. We typically transfer the fines to drivers, who will then have the option to pay or appeal the fine if needs be. If we aren't able to transfer the fine, we may have to pay it on your behalf, and will be in touch if this is the case.

Quote from: 8vaibhav on July 17, 2024, 12:19:04 pm

I am surprised a non-working Parking Machine isn't excuse enough. I mean seriously!

The problem is, as has now been established, the signage indicates that during the times you were there, you are only allowed to stay for 2 hours - there is not an option to pay to extend your time beyond this, and if you exceed the maximum stay, you incur a parking charge of £100. Even if the parking machine had been working, you wouldn't have been able to pay anything, as parking was free at the time, but only for up to 2 hours.

Wait.. What? This is thoroughly confusing, why wouldn't I have been able to pay when I had reasonable idea that I will exceed 2 hours. In fact, while leaving I knew exactly the time I had spent and did spend effort to try and pay on the machine, would have certainly paid if it was working, why do you say I wouldn't have been able to. Sorry, I am so confused.

It's hard to advise on your chances really, courts aren't always predictable. I can't see any "slam dunk" defences - I think the main thing you would need to clarify is why no payment was made via the PayByPhone app. You mention that it was confusing, but from your opening post it seems like you found an option that would have allowed you to pay the tariff for one overnight stay:

Quote

It was asking £15.20

Hello, yes so getting to the nuts and bolts of this. Parking was free for 2hours and "overnight charges" apply it said if longer than 2. Sure.. but then the signage (shared earlier in the thread) also says "Upto 9 hours £15.00". So overnight charges apply but that same is less than 9 hours somehow, I suppose they would send PCN if someone paid and exceeded 9 hours. I found it very confusing that overnight is 9hours.

Then on PayByPhone App, it didn't mention this 9 hour limit at all, it allowed to select multiple days, say I selected "2 days" what would it mean if only 9 hours is allowed in one stretch. I just thought I better not use the App and pay on the machine but turns out that was "out of service" which POPLA agrees to also but doesn't seems to make a different to their decision.

Also, may I add, when I received the first PCN, I thought I should pay for the 2nd incident on a delayed basis, but there was no option to do the same, only option was to wait for 2nd PCN..

Other images:

Final Notice:


POPLA decision:



Signage:


Broken Machine:


PayByPhone screenhot:

Many thanks again for quick and brilliant responses.
However, Octopus (The keeper) definitely know who the driver is, it's part of my agreement/insurance that NOBODY but me is allowed to drive.

I suppose you are saying that in theory we can't 100% rule out that someone else temperoarily drove the car without my knowledge and put the car back in my parking spot. In which case, nobody is lying, though clearly this feels like it..